New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-02-28
OPPOSING NATIONAL DEFENCE.
RELUCTANCE OF THE MOCRATs TO VOTE MONEY
FOR GINS OR suIPS.

kELIClANtE III luz u hpN'-N'D ~ ''''' ''<-''-'
FOR GUNS OR suIPS
WASHINGTON Feb % tSyeciah.-The debate and votes
In the House yesterday the amendments 10 the Naval
Appropriation bill showed with what reluctance the
Democrats that body respond TO the demand OF the
country adequate provision shall he made for Ma
tloral defence The speeches OF Reed. FOute!e and
Thomas clusively showed the necessity OF the amend
pents proposed AMI yet nearly thirds OF tho Demo
cratic members present voted against the proposition
offered by Mr. sayres OF the Naval Committee. and II
would have been rejected by an Overwhelming majority
had not been the Republican votes which, with
single exception. were cast sodly IN the affirmative
Mr. Holman. OF Aurora. Ind, which is far beyond
tie range Of tho heaviest gun or any
foreign power assured the House that the brave hearts
and free institutions OF the United states than
match for the sxeeninch guns England. Frame or
Germany He also awelt on the dangers OF n standing
army Mr. Bland. OF Lebanon. in the state OF Missouri
whose home from foreign attack declared
that money might well be poured into the river "a APP
Piled TO the building OF navy. sentiment which was
applaudcd reiterated by Statesman Warner from the
town Marietta, Ohio The efforts of the three patriots
named TO stir up sectional feeling in opposition to the
SAyres amendment which did not 20 half as Tar a. u
should have done. unsuccessful Some Democrats
Joined with the Republicans In support OF the amend
ment Among them was Mr.. McAdoo. Of New-Jersey.
who made light OF the threatening picture
drawn by Holman OF the danger Of the growth of
military power in this country The amendment Of Mt
Bouele Of Maine. which provided Tor the conslrnS4h
of ten protected steel cruisers aud was IDENTICAL WIN h
Cameron bill recently passed by the senate was rejected
in the Committee Of the Whole by party vote OF l 10
SO The SaNres amendment, Which was Supported Dy
the members OF the Naval Committee was adopted Dy
vote of l5l 10 ~ barely nifty Democrats voting Tor H.
The Amendment offered by Mr. Reed. of Maine. aud sup
ported by him OF the best speeces oi the scSsn
wes rejected a party vote OF 100 Democrats 10 ~
Republicans This amendment was identical WIN we
provision which recently passed the Seuae 10y an almost
unanimous apprOpriaiinS sS,OOV.oOo Tor modern
heavy guns for the Navy. When Chairman hef
bert rose 10 oppose this amendment several DeoIrI
declared: No explanation is necessary: VIC VIII an
vote against it," For years the Democratic majority IN
the House soidly opposed roprlatOns for the main
tenance OF the Navy, lar as the building OF ne" sh
concerned the ground that Republican Ahn'ln
istraon could be trusted 10 disiurSr the money
Now In the face OF almost unanimous pubilc sthu-
| nent ana with Administration of their own, they
oppose the purpose. and what
money granted by this Congress FOR purposes OF
National defence will have been Nfestod iTom an unWl
Ing Democratic majority the House toy az active aui
persistent minority experimenting The efforts oil alepuD-
| licau senate.